Re: Behringer does it !!! [Archive]

Analogeezer

February 19th 04, 09:07 PM

(EggHd) wrote in message >...
> << You can start making music with a $5 harmonica (or are they $10 yet?). >>
>
>
> Good point. Why do some people believe they need to be recording something in
> order to be making music?

> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Actually there are a couple of good reasons:

1. Practice space

You can record stuff in your house, but it's hard to put a band
together and find a place to practice. In many suburban/urban areas
it;'s almost impossible for kids to get a decent practice place,
houses are too close together and the old days of four guys putting in
$5 a month to rent a storage garage are gone....those places are too
expensive now and they usually don't allow bands.

So you can get some recording gear, a drum machine or some loops and
do something...getting an entire band together is much harder because
then where do you play?

Sure you could play to drum loops or a machine, but that is dorky in a
live context, ok in a recording context (well ok enough for most
listeners).

2. Where do you play?

Ok, let's say you DO have a place to practice AND you put a band
together...once you get your tunes down where do you play?

High Schools rarely have bands anymore, teenage parties get raided for
the slightest noise so that gig's out, bars won't hire you unless you
are over 21.

In the "olden days" I knew a guy that made a lot of coin playing in
top 40 bars on the side....in 11th and 12th grade.

Back then if you looked old enough, that was good enough...today that
same guy would have to produce five photo ID's showing he was old
enough to be in the club.

Also the local "community center" used to have local young bands all
the time...those days are pretty much gone too. If they have music
it's chamber music, faux jazz or something else for older people

In the "olden days" you got a band together, then after a while you
might decide to go to that big studio downtown and spend some money on
recording.

Other than a cassette deck, nobody could afford (even a Tascam based
studio cost probably $40,000 in today's dollars) to just have a studio
to record in.

I remember in the 70's and early 80's, all my friends were buying
giant PA rigs for gigs...nobody bought recording gear. These days it's
backwards, nobody buys giant PA's anymore because there are not any
giant gigs to play.

These days it's all backwards...it's easier and cheaper to record than
it is to have a band and play out, so people gravitate towards that.

Instead of saying "come hear my band" it's "here's my CD, or check out
the MP3's on my website".

I just feel bad for kids because live playing (and the poontang factor
that comes with it) is a major part of playing music.

Analogeezer

EggHd

February 19th 04, 09:25 PM

<< Actually there are a couple of good reasons: >>

I guess I was being too general.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

George Gleason

February 20th 04, 07:43 PM

I'm the technical director for our radio
> show, Mountain Stage, and we have several needs there.

I want to compliment you on a wonderful facility
I got to mix there at a footmad show last march(Old Blind Dogs)
Your crew was paitence , helpful , and professional your gear was pro level
deployed properly and working up to standard
you mix position was about as good as I worked at that tour
the people were friendly(The after party up in the hills was the BOMB!)
and it was a hoot riding on the stage
Good Job, one of the facilities I would look forward to returning to
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004

reddred

February 21st 04, 04:01 AM

"octopus" > wrote in message
...
> (John Dziurlaj) wrote in message
>...
> > (jancee) wrote in message
>...
> > > so heres my two cents about Behringer: say what you will but Behringer
> > > has let lots of kids and wannabes learn the basics of making music by
> > > allowing them to get their fingers on equipment with features they
> > > could not afford if Behringer wasn't around; in that case all they
> > > could choose from would be more expensive equipment that would
> > > effectively price them out of the game.
> > >
> > I think it will do just the opposite, kids will lose interest in music
> > because it sounds so bad!
>
>
> This is such a big nonsense!
> We have paid much more money for Fostex and Tascam 4-track recorders
> to record our music. The technical quality was much worse than what
> you can achieve today with a cheap PC and its onboard soundcard
> together with a Behringer mixer.
> The microphones that we could afford were in the same range as the
> cheap Chinese condensor mics today (including Behringer and Marshall
> mics) - but not as good.
>

<etc.,>

And who hasn't bought cheap **** and later wondered why they didn't exercise
some patience?

The funny thing about The Kids is that they all get older and stop being
Kids. It's important to remember that, even when you are a Kid. A lot of
times the main difference between cheap crap and decency, in terms of what
you can have, is some patience (restraint) and knowing what you are looking
at. Funny, sometimes that's the same thing that makes a mix work or not.

jb

> But, still we did not loose interest. And if today a kid looses
> interest in music, it's certainly not because of the quality of todays
> cheapest gear. (most kids raise interest in music based on mp3 files
> with 96kbps!). It has never been easier and cheaper for kids to
> achieve a recording quality which is most of the time significantly
> above their musical abilities.
>
> Kids will probably loose interest in music when people like you tell
> them that it does not make sense to make home recordings until you
> can't afford all that expensive stuff. Arguments like yours just help
> them to blame poor results on the gear they used - that's good for Sam
> Ash but not helpful for the kids.
>
> Markus

George Perfect

February 21st 04, 09:36 AM

In this place, reddred was recorded uttering these words:
> And who hasn't bought cheap **** and later wondered why they didn't exerc=
ise
> some patience?

And how do you learn to tell the difference?

>=20
> The funny thing about The Kids is that they all get older and stop being
> Kids. It's important to remember that, even when you are a Kid. A lot of
> times the main difference between cheap crap and decency, in terms of wha=
t
> you can have, is some patience (restraint) and knowing what you are looki=
ng
> at. Funny, sometimes that's the same thing that makes a mix work or not.

Then there's the argument that anything that lets the creative juices=20
flow (and doesn't put a brake on kids' energy and enthusiasm) is=20
priceless.

When my teenage son first expressed an interest in playing electric=20
guitar, my wife and I were delighted to find a cheap Strat copy (a=20
Westfield) with small amp for less than =A3100 ($150). It was ideal to let=
=20
a potential young rock-god discover whether his interest would last.

In his case, it did - and he's since been upgraded via a Yamaha to (this=20
Christmas) a PRS with Line-6 amp.

He still has the Westfield and the practise amp. Guess what? He still=20
occasionally plays the Westfield (he has learned to appreciate=20
differences in tone and playability) and the practise amp is used almost=20
daily - despite the more obvious attractions of the shiny new Line-6.

Would I buy a cheap starter guitar package again? You bet I would.

And - getting back to cheap gear - I was asked to help kit out the=20
boys' school music department for a new music technology course.=20
Regardless of budget (which, you may not be surprised to hear, did not=20
run to Neve/GML/Neumann - nor even Focusrite/Meek/Shure) I put in a=20
collection of Soundcraft, Behringer, Zoom, AKG and cheap Chinese mics.

This stuff has worked flawlessly for three years now - under hard=20
working conditions (anyone know where I can buy armoured mic cables?=20
<g>) and ... is about a million times better than the quality of gear I=20
cut my teeth on in my teens.

Point is - low-cost gear has some seriously valuable purpose.

And the well-equipped studio owners here might ask where tomorrow's=20
talent is going to come from if kids don't get an opportunity to learn=20
and gain experience.

Kids are smart. They do learn to appreciate differences (including sonic=20
quality) and will want better - it's in their nature.

But they have to gain experience to acquire that appreciation.

Your entire argument is based on an assumption that low-cost gear sounds=20
like crap, falls apart and has no value in "professional" circles.

Have you *used* any of this stuff or are you just recycling old=20
prejudices?

Don't just blindly knock the cheap stuff. It has value and purpose well=20
beyond what you give it credit for.

And it's performance (even audibly) can be much better than you imagine.

--=20
George
Newcastle, England
(Please remove leading 'NOSPAM' to reply by email)

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth by hitting back - Piet Hein

reddred

February 21st 04, 01:38 PM

"George Perfect" > wrote in message
o.uk...
In this place, reddred was recorded uttering these words:

>
> The funny thing about The Kids is that they all get older and stop being
> Kids. It's important to remember that, even when you are a Kid. A lot of
> times the main difference between cheap crap and decency, in terms of what
> you can have, is some patience (restraint) and knowing what you are
looking
> at. Funny, sometimes that's the same thing that makes a mix work or not.

*Then there's the argument that anything that lets the creative juices
*flow (and doesn't put a brake on kids' energy and enthusiasm) is
*priceless.

I don't disagree. I think low-cost gear is great as a learning tool, even
the stuff that doesn't cut the mustard as a production tool. Although IMO
much of it does, but telling the difference can be tricky.

While your son might be happy with his strat-copy now, he will run into a
plateau with it unless it is an extreme exception to the rule. And if he
were going into a studio, or even making a record on his own, if he were at
that point with his music, he would undoubtedly want something a bit better.
The key thing here is that nobody is telling him that his guitar is 'just as
good' as a luthier instrument or even a top of the line strat, even though
for his purposes, at his level of interest, it is 'just as good'. It is
marketed for what it is - a great starting guitar.

*And - getting back to cheap gear - I was asked to help kit out the
*boys' school music department for a new music technology course.
*Regardless of budget (which, you may not be surprised to hear, did not
*run to Neve/GML/Neumann - nor even Focusrite/Meek/Shure) I put in a
*collection of Soundcraft, Behringer, Zoom, AKG and cheap Chinese mics.

Some of which is great stuff. My experience with Behringer is less than
positive, but OTOH if Behringer had been around when I was a teenager with a
four track cassette I would have loved it.

*This stuff has worked flawlessly for three years now - under hard
*working conditions (anyone know where I can buy armoured mic cables?
*<g>) and ... is about a million times better than the quality of gear I
*cut my teeth on in my teens.

And the import guitars are better too. I take advantage of this trend all
the time - my studio isn't exactly full of neve channels and neumanns, nor
do I think those things are particularly necessary.

*Your entire argument is based on an assumption that low-cost gear sounds
*like crap, falls apart and has no value in "professional" circles.

Now here's where you are making assumptions about what I was trying to
express by talking about patience, and I think I wasn't explicit enough with
him.

People have the tendency to want it all, right now (not just kids) and the
pro audio industry is willing lately to make those kinds of offers - but
there is a hidden cost.

Really, if all somebody can afford is, say, an m-audio audiobuddy, because
that's all the money they have -right now-, they deserve to know that
something that costs two or three times as much may sound a great deal
better (or it may not) and a little patience is in order- to save some
money, and to learn about what it is they are getting into. And $300 is
still chump change in audio, really, but in my experience, it is in the
sub-$1000 gear that you'll see the most dramatic differences in quality at
different price points.

There is a trend towards gear that does everything cheaply, lots of
features, but does it do any one thing particularly well? A thing I might
ask a kid just getting into recording is 'do you really need sixteen
preamps? do you even need eight? are you going to be recording a band
tomorrow, because if it's just you in the bedroom you can use two.' So it's
better to get two good ones than sixteen so-so pres. I think this gets lost
to a neophyte because they all look the same, and the idea of a quality
difference is just an abstraction, they've never actually heard it.

The other problem comes when they are being told that the cheap gear is
'just as good' when it isn't necessarily. 'good' is relative to the
situation, and it often has nothing to do with price, which was my other
point.

*Have you *used* any of this stuff or are you just recycling old
*prejudices?

You'd be suprised (or not) by the kind of horrible, decaying bits I use
every time I record, and it only tends to deteriorate over time. Sometimes I
think, regardless of what is in front of the mic, I am recording the
testament of cheap industrial shortcuts and entropy. And duct tape.

jb

Mike Rivers

February 21st 04, 05:36 PM

In article > writes:

> I think low-cost gear is great as a learning tool, even
> the stuff that doesn't cut the mustard as a production tool. Although IMO
> much of it does, but telling the difference can be tricky.

Telling the difference gets easier as you gain experience. But what
also gets easeier is the ability to do a usable job with lower quality
equipment if that's what you have to work with. How many times have we
heard Mackie mixers being dismissed as useless because they "have no
headroom" or "the EQ can't be defeated" yet those who turn the knobs
so that what comes out sounds right can work with them satisfactorily.

Not in every case of course - there are some instances where it's just
plain wrong to even try, and a professional who can afford better
won't normally buy cheap just because he can get away with it most of
the time, but if your job is to do the job with what's handed to you,
you figure out how to do it. And if you're just learning, if you learn
that if you see the red lights come on you un-do what you just did,
you're on your way to success. Next step is to listen to what happens
before the red lights come on, but that comes with experience.

> While your son might be happy with his strat-copy now, he will run into a
> plateau with it unless it is an extreme exception to the rule.

But when? That's the question. If he can get two years out of it
before he gets good enough so that he can really control the tone with
his hands and it won't go where he hears it trying to go, or the neck
warps and it doesn't stay in tune up the neck (where he's finally
learned to play) then it's time to move up. I would think that an
entry-level mixer should hold a beginner recordist for quite a while.
In two years, it's rare that someone will go from buying a bottom end
mixer to having the listening skills and monitoring that would enable
him to take advantage of something costing 10 times as much.

> The key thing here is that nobody is telling him that his guitar is 'just as
> good' as a luthier instrument or even a top of the line strat, even though
> for his purposes, at his level of interest, it is 'just as good'. It is
> marketed for what it is - a great starting guitar.

I'll have to give a few points to the other side here. A lot of the
entry level audio gear is, if not directly marketed as "as good as"
it's implied, and believed by those who promote this eqipment. We all
know that it isn't - but we also know that there's probably something
worse that SHOULD be avoided. The question is where that level is.

If sound was all that counted, I wouldn't hesitate to use, or
recommend a Beheringer mixer to someone who didn't have much money to
spend. It would be more important to put more of the total budget into
other things. But for my own personal use, not only does it have to
sound good enough to use, but it also has to feel good to me, and this
is where I find that some of the lower end gear falls down. The
corners are sharp, the finish isn't smooth, the controls and/or the
jacks feel flimsy - stuff that won't keep you from working, but which
reduces my confidence.

> There is a trend towards gear that does everything cheaply, lots of
> features, but does it do any one thing particularly well? A thing I might
> ask a kid just getting into recording is 'do you really need sixteen
> preamps? do you even need eight? are you going to be recording a band
> tomorrow, because if it's just you in the bedroom you can use two.' So it's
> better to get two good ones than sixteen so-so pres.

Of course you're getting into the "I wish they made one that . . . ."
thing. A Behringer mixer with two mic inputs doesn't have better mic
preamps than a Behringer mixer with 16 mic inputs. But it's not likely
that a Mackie or a Spirit would, either. And you can't get an API with
two mic inputs (OK, so you can get a lunchbox with a mixer, but not
for just a little more than a Behringer).

> I think this gets lost
> to a neophyte because they all look the same, and the idea of a quality
> difference is just an abstraction, they've never actually heard it.

Unfortunately, at that quantum level, they just about ARE all the
same, hence the argument for buying the cheapest one in the class
because it's not significantly worse (or better) than the most
expensive one in the class. I'd argue that someone who's recording one
or two tracks at a time to a computer might be better off spending
$500 on a decent mic preamp and a patchbay than spending that $500 on
an 8+ channel mixer. But when the alternative is to spend $59 on a
mixer with 2 mic inputs and a couple of line inputs and aux sends, a
headphone amplifier, and a 2-track mix return, I'd say put the $400 in
the bank (you'll need a little money for cables) or into a better mic
and learn how signal routing works. The mixer will still be usable for
monitoring even after he buys a better mic preamp.

What's unfortunate is that people with little or no experience and no
live tutor or mentor see the $59 mixer as "just as good" and wonder
why their recordings don't sound like the CDs that they're buying.
There are a lot more reasons than the mixer, but that's hard to
understand for someone who's spent all the money he has.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

George Perfect

February 21st 04, 06:00 PM

In this place, reddred was recorded uttering these words:
> I don't disagree. I think low-cost gear is great as a learning tool, even
> the stuff that doesn't cut the mustard as a production tool. Although IMO
> much of it does, but telling the difference can be tricky.

Surely someone with experience just uses their ears. Someone without
experience has to hear what's not so good and what's better to educate
themselves.

>
> While your son might be happy with his strat-copy now, he will run into a
> plateau with it unless it is an extreme exception to the rule. And if he
> were going into a studio, or even making a record on his own, if he were at
> that point with his music, he would undoubtedly want something a bit better.

As I said, he's already on to generation three (a very nice PRS thanks
very much - ouch!)

> The key thing here is that nobody is telling him that his guitar is 'just as
> good' as a luthier instrument or even a top of the line strat, even though
> for his purposes, at his level of interest, it is 'just as good'. It is
> marketed for what it is - a great starting guitar.

Did I miss something? Who was claiming that cheap gear is as good as
more expensive stuff?

>
> Really, if all somebody can afford is, say, an m-audio audiobuddy, because
> that's all the money they have -right now-, they deserve to know that
> something that costs two or three times as much may sound a great deal
> better (or it may not) and a little patience is in order- to save some
> money, and to learn about what it is they are getting into.

There's that experience conundrum again. We can't force-feed experience
into people. Those that know enough to care come here and ask. Others
pay over their money and learn a different way. Neither is particularly
right or wrong - just different strokes for different folks.

And companies that supply cheap or affordable gear aren't doing anything
wrong - there's no suggestion of exploitation of the masses, surely.

> And $300 is
> still chump change in audio, really, but in my experience, it is in the
> sub-$1000 gear that you'll see the most dramatic differences in quality at
> different price points.

That's the good ol' 80:20 rule at work.

But at the lowest end of any market the difference between $70 and $100
is as significant as the difference between $5,000 and $7,000 higher up
the scale. The higher priced item may not be affordable or justifiable
at either point.

>
> There is a trend towards gear that does everything cheaply, lots of
> features, but does it do any one thing particularly well?

Such as? Nothing in this thread I think. If we're still talking
Behringer, most of their products are fairly traditional boxes dedicated
to doing one task.

> A thing I might
> ask a kid just getting into recording is 'do you really need sixteen
> preamps? do you even need eight? are you going to be recording a band
> tomorrow, because if it's just you in the bedroom you can use two.' So it's
> better to get two good ones than sixteen so-so pres. I think this gets lost
> to a neophyte because they all look the same, and the idea of a quality
> difference is just an abstraction, they've never actually heard it.

I think you are trying to think for other people again. How do you know
they don't listen to either the item they buy or other items (even those
they can't afford right now) before making their choice.

>
> The other problem comes when they are being told that the cheap gear is
> 'just as good' when it isn't necessarily. 'good' is relative to the
> situation, and it often has nothing to do with price, which was my other
> point.

So who here is telling anyone that Behringer or similar gear is "just as
good" (as what?) ?

Several (including the OP in this thread) have said it's good enough to
suit their needs. What's wrong with that statement?

> You'd be suprised (or not) by the kind of horrible, decaying bits I use
> every time I record, and it only tends to deteriorate over time. Sometimes I
> think, regardless of what is in front of the mic, I am recording the
> testament of cheap industrial shortcuts and entropy. And duct tape.

Or maybe I wouldn't ;^)

--
George
Newcastle, England
(Please remove leading 'NOSPAM' to reply by email)

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth by hitting back - Piet Hein

George

February 21st 04, 07:10 PM

In article <znr1077375441k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> In article >
> writes:
>
> > I think low-cost gear is great as a learning tool, even
> > the stuff that doesn't cut the mustard as a production tool. Although IMO
> > much of it does, but telling the difference can be tricky.
>
> Telling the difference gets easier as you gain experience. But what
> also gets easeier is the ability to do a usable job with lower quality
> equipment if that's what you have to work with. How many times have we
> heard Mackie mixers being dismissed as useless because they "have no
> headroom" or "the EQ can't be defeated" yet those who turn the knobs
> so that what comes out sounds right can work with them satisfactorily.
>
Lots of truth here Mike
when I first started out I could not get useful stage volume with the
sm58 years later I am coming back to 58 beacuse they are so singer
friendly, and I can compensate for the mud and uneven pattern
Also in all fairness I did one of my all time best mixes on a mackie
24.4 in silversprings MD
Would i rather been mixing on my K2, SURE, but I honestly doubt it would
have sound any better
George

agent86

February 21st 04, 07:46 PM

George wrote:

> when I first started out I could not get useful stage volume with the
> sm58 years later I am coming back to 58 beacuse they are so singer
> friendly, and I can compensate for the mud and uneven pattern
> Also in all fairness I did one of my all time best mixes on a mackie
> 24.4 in silversprings MD
> Would i rather been mixing on my K2, SURE, but I honestly doubt it would
> have sound any better

OK, what have you done with the REAL George Gleason? ;-)

Mike Rivers

February 21st 04, 11:12 PM

In article > writes:

> Surely someone with experience just uses their ears. Someone without
> experience has to hear what's not so good and what's better to educate
> themselves.

Some of them eventually learn, too, and that's a good thing. But all
too many can't hear that there's anything wrong (or not) so they
figure that if they get better equipment, there won't be any problems.
That's where the logic breaks down.

> Did I miss something? Who was claiming that cheap gear is as good as
> more expensive stuff?

I don't think you are, but some manufacturers have done so, or implied
it in their advertising. And some deny that cheap gear is enough worse
than good gear that it doesn't belong in a 'pro' kit just on general
principles.

> But at the lowest end of any market the difference between $70 and $100
> is as significant as the difference between $5,000 and $7,000 higher up
> the scale.

I'm not sure I agree with this. $30 at the bottom end doesn't buy a
lot of difference. It buys a decent dinner but that doesn't improve
the audio any. $2,000 in the middle end (?) can buy quite a bit of
performance or reliability.

> Several (including the OP in this thread) have said it's good enough to
> suit their needs. What's wrong with that statement?

Nothing, and until he perceives a change in his needs we shouldn't
argue with him. We might suggest that he'll discover that need sooner
than he thinks, but that's no reason to say that he shouldn't start at
the bottom if that's what it takes to get him started. The sooner he
starts learning, the better.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

George Perfect

February 22nd 04, 08:30 AM

In this place, Mike Rivers was recorded uttering these words:
> > But at the lowest end of any market the difference between $70 and $100
> > is as significant as the difference between $5,000 and $7,000 higher up
> > the scale.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with this. $30 at the bottom end doesn't buy a
> lot of difference. It buys a decent dinner but that doesn't improve
> the audio any. $2,000 in the middle end (?) can buy quite a bit of
> performance or reliability.

Poor use of language on my part, methinks. The significance I was
thinking of was to the wallet, not differences in qualities of the gear
in question. Maybe I should have said if you can only afford $70 you can
only afford $70 - and $100 is quite a stretch from there.

I think you're right to focus on the middle ground. There's a point
beyond which 80:20 becomes 20:80 - ie, it gets increasingly harder to
deliver any appreciable difference and the cost of each tiny incremental
gain rises exponentially.

Plenty of dinners to be had discussing where the 'point' is <vbg> !

--
George
Newcastle, England
(Please remove leading 'NOSPAM' to reply by email)

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth by hitting back - Piet Hein

Mike Rivers

February 22nd 04, 02:17 PM

In article > writes:

> The significance I was
> thinking of was to the wallet, not differences in qualities of the gear
> in question. Maybe I should have said if you can only afford $70 you can
> only afford $70 - and $100 is quite a stretch from there.

It depends on so many things. If you can afford $70 today, chances are
you'll be able to afford $100 in a few months if you wait and save
some of your lunch money. But if you can buy that $70 mixer today,
record a CD over the next week, and in the next month of gigs, sell
$500 worth of your home-made CDs, then by all means get going with the
$70 tool. You wouldn't necessarily sell more CDs just because you had
a $100 mixer.

> I think you're right to focus on the middle ground. There's a point
> beyond which 80:20 becomes 20:80 - ie, it gets increasingly harder to
> deliver any appreciable difference and the cost of each tiny incremental
> gain rises exponentially.

Yup, and a lot of that depends on the end product. Hobbyists tend not
to think of anything actually going out the door and bringing in
money, but they just want to be the best at what they're doing.
Nothing wrong with that, but it's not a business. If you actually NEED
an end product (like CDs to sell off the stage, or demos to get work)
then the absoulute quality doesn't matter as much as getting the
project finshed.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

reddred

February 23rd 04, 06:47 AM

"George Perfect" > wrote in message
o.uk...
> In this place, reddred was recorded uttering these words:
> > I don't disagree. I think low-cost gear is great as a learning tool,
even
> > the stuff that doesn't cut the mustard as a production tool. Although
IMO
> > much of it does, but telling the difference can be tricky.
>
> Surely someone with experience just uses their ears. Someone without
> experience has to hear what's not so good and what's better to educate
> themselves.
>

Do you have to buy stuff to get there?

> >
> > While your son might be happy with his strat-copy now, he will run into
a
> > plateau with it unless it is an extreme exception to the rule. And if he
> > were going into a studio, or even making a record on his own, if he were
at
> > that point with his music, he would undoubtedly want something a bit
better.
>
> As I said, he's already on to generation three (a very nice PRS thanks
> very much - ouch!)
>

Damn. One of the American ones?

> >
> > Really, if all somebody can afford is, say, an m-audio audiobuddy,
because
> > that's all the money they have -right now-, they deserve to know that
> > something that costs two or three times as much may sound a great deal
> > better (or it may not) and a little patience is in order- to save some
> > money, and to learn about what it is they are getting into.
>
> There's that experience conundrum again. We can't force-feed experience
> into people. Those that know enough to care come here and ask. Others
> pay over their money and learn a different way. Neither is particularly
> right or wrong - just different strokes for different folks.
>

Oh, I don't know about that. Someone who has been through a learning process
has some insight into a good way to go about it, pitfalls to avoid, etc.,
and learning 'recording' is even more complicated than it used to be.

I certainly learned by trial and error, on my own pretty much, but I had the
benefit of starting really simply and learning the basics, and I think there
are so many capabilities and options available to the beginner now that 'the
basics' are often left by the wayside.

When I wanted to record music, I started out with a stereo cassette deck and
a microphone, played for a while and recorded myself and other people I
knew, added another deck so I could 'overdub', then got really fancy with a
radio shack mixer and the spring reverb from the bottom of an amp. When the
four tracks got cheap enough, I bought one of those and actually learned
about EQ, dolby, etc.,

So it was a logical, simple progression, based on the technology that was
available to rank amateurs. I didn't have access to things like Sonar, with
unlimited tracks and two of every effect imaginable, and in retrospect,
though I would have been thrilled to have all that, it was much better to
learn one simple thing at a time, using gear where the process was
transparent and physically visible, and there weren't too many things I
could mess up making choices, it was basically either right or wrong, good
or bad.

Could be it wasn't the best way to learn, but if I was going to be on my own
like that, it was probably better than somebody tossing a room full of gear
at me and saying 'go for it', and certainly better than spending a ton of
money on stuff I had no real concept of how to use. There are so many
options now that the learning process isn't as easy to cut up into perfect
little chunks.

jb

reddred

February 23rd 04, 07:37 AM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1077375441k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:

> > While your son might be happy with his strat-copy now, he will run into
a
> > plateau with it unless it is an extreme exception to the rule.
>
> But when? That's the question. If he can get two years out of it
> before he gets good enough so that he can really control the tone with
> his hands and it won't go where he hears it trying to go, or the neck
> warps and it doesn't stay in tune up the neck (where he's finally
> learned to play) then it's time to move up. I would think that an
> entry-level mixer should hold a beginner recordist for quite a while.
> In two years, it's rare that someone will go from buying a bottom end
> mixer to having the listening skills and monitoring that would enable
> him to take advantage of something costing 10 times as much.
>

There's also the capability issue, if one little mixer sounds much the same
as the next, it might be better to get the simplest and cheapest one you can
get away with, even though the temptation is to get the one with the most
capability, I don't think a lot of 'The Kids' realize it might be a while
before they need that ability. And IMO if they have zero experience, it's
better for them in the long run if they get something simple that they can
understand everything about and master the use of quickly.

> > The key thing here is that nobody is telling him that his guitar is
'just as
> > good' as a luthier instrument or even a top of the line strat, even
though
> > for his purposes, at his level of interest, it is 'just as good'. It is
> > marketed for what it is - a great starting guitar.
>
> I'll have to give a few points to the other side here. A lot of the
> entry level audio gear is, if not directly marketed as "as good as"
> it's implied, and believed by those who promote this eqipment.

They believe that about thier own products? I think that a breakthrough
priduct like the mackie 8-buss was actually as good as some stuff being used
in commercial studios that did cost a lot more, but there was plenty of
stuff that the mackie couldn't touch in a million years, even consoles that
were only 'mid-range'. Unless maybe they consider quality and function to be
more or less the same thing, which is kind of depressing considering we're
supposed to be about facilitating music.

>We all
> know that it isn't - but we also know that there's probably something
> worse that SHOULD be avoided. The question is where that level is.
>

We're still dealing with manufacturers price points here, so hardly ever
will you see something that's significantly cheaper than a product with
identical features without there having been some corners cut there. So I
don't know where the level is, but it is above the bottom.

> If sound was all that counted, I wouldn't hesitate to use, or
> recommend a Beheringer mixer to someone who didn't have much money to
> spend. It would be more important to put more of the total budget into
> other things.

I think decent mics are a pretty safe thing for a beginner to buy.

>But for my own personal use, not only does it have to
> sound good enough to use, but it also has to feel good to me, and this
> is where I find that some of the lower end gear falls down. The
> corners are sharp, the finish isn't smooth, the controls and/or the
> jacks feel flimsy - stuff that won't keep you from working, but which
> reduces my confidence.
>

It's hard to find stuff that feels good. Old Radio Shack recievers feel
superior to most of the low-end 'pro' gear available now, and their consumer
gear wasn't all that expensive, relatively, when it came out...

And it would be neat if I could get gear that's silver with wooden side
panels, and large knobs with sturdy pots. It could even say 'solid state' on
the bottom.

> > There is a trend towards gear that does everything cheaply, lots of
> > features, but does it do any one thing particularly well? A thing I
might
> > ask a kid just getting into recording is 'do you really need sixteen
> > preamps? do you even need eight? are you going to be recording a band
> > tomorrow, because if it's just you in the bedroom you can use two.' So
it's
> > better to get two good ones than sixteen so-so pres.
>
> Of course you're getting into the "I wish they made one that . . . ."
> thing. A Behringer mixer with two mic inputs doesn't have better mic
> preamps than a Behringer mixer with 16 mic inputs. But it's not likely
> that a Mackie or a Spirit would, either. And you can't get an API with
> two mic inputs (OK, so you can get a lunchbox with a mixer, but not
> for just a little more than a Behringer).
>

Although if someone is spending three hundred on the sixteen channel
behringer, spending six hundred on an RNP and a little mixer to monitor with
doesn't seem too far fetched - and I'd bet that neither of those things ever
really needs to be replaced, just built upon or assigned a different task.

> > I think this gets lost
> > to a neophyte because they all look the same, and the idea of a quality
> > difference is just an abstraction, they've never actually heard it.
>
> Unfortunately, at that quantum level, they just about ARE all the
> same, hence the argument for buying the cheapest one in the class
> because it's not significantly worse (or better) than the most
> expensive one in the class.

I don't know, I can't talk about the Behringer mixers much, I only listened
to one, though it sounded pretty ...wrong... to me. I'm perfectly willing to
believe that it was psychological, because of the way the thing felt under
my hands, I had already decided I hated it. Shame too, I wanted to like it,
it was so inexpensive...

> I'd argue that someone who's recording one
> or two tracks at a time to a computer might be better off spending
> $500 on a decent mic preamp and a patchbay than spending that $500 on
> an 8+ channel mixer. But when the alternative is to spend $59 on a
> mixer with 2 mic inputs and a couple of line inputs and aux sends, a
> headphone amplifier, and a 2-track mix return, I'd say put the $400 in
> the bank (you'll need a little money for cables) or into a better mic
> and learn how signal routing works. The mixer will still be usable for
> monitoring even after he buys a better mic preamp.
>

Yeah

> What's unfortunate is that people with little or no experience and no
> live tutor or mentor see the $59 mixer as "just as good" and wonder
> why their recordings don't sound like the CDs that they're buying.
> There are a lot more reasons than the mixer, but that's hard to
> understand for someone who's spent all the money he has.
>

Well, it's just so misleading. It's fine to say, I guess, 'you can do all
the things that only expensive studios could do ten years ago' because
that's largely true. But 'quality' is a different issue.

The thing with four track cassettes was, everybody knew what they were
getting, that even though Sgt. Pepper's was recorded to four tracks, a
cassette was a different ballgame. I don't remember Tascam making a big deal
out of it, I think their angle was 'hey, musician, look what you can do, get
good at this and make your own demo of your own song.' That's my
recollection anyway. That doesn't mean they sounded bad, I just think
everybody knew that the cheap home gear just wasn't the same stuff that real
studios had. Could be the gap had narrowed a bit, but not that much.

jb

George Perfect

February 23rd 04, 07:37 AM

In this place, reddred was recorded uttering these words:
>
> > Surely someone with experience just uses their ears. Someone without
> > experience has to hear what's not so good and what's better to educate
> > themselves.
> >
>
> Do you have to buy stuff to get there?

Unless you know somewhere folks can get to use stuff for the hours,
weeks and months you say it takes to learn what it does.

> > As I said, he's already on to generation three (a very nice PRS thanks
> > very much - ouch!)
> >
>
> Damn. One of the American ones?

C'mon - he's 15! It's a Santana SE-II - still a very nice guitar by all
accounts.

[... snip ...]

In the same way that my kids see nothing unusual about robots landing on
Mars and accept the mobile phone as a birth-right, they take to
technology like a duck to water. My son has watched me in the studio a
bit, picked up the basics of operating the mixers and signal routing and
which buttons to press to get sound in and out of the computer.

After a couple of sessions he was past the multi-tracking and overdub
stage (all by himself, I add) and was back concentrating on his music
and arrangements.

No excessive fatherly pride here (I hope) - just an observation on the
adaptability of the young.

--
George
Newcastle, England
(Please remove leading 'NOSPAM' to reply by email)

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth by hitting back - Piet Hein

Mike Rivers

February 23rd 04, 02:19 PM

In article > writes:

> There's also the capability issue, if one little mixer sounds much the same
> as the next, it might be better to get the simplest and cheapest one you can
> get away with, even though the temptation is to get the one with the most
> capability, I don't think a lot of 'The Kids' realize it might be a while
> before they need that ability. And IMO if they have zero experience, it's
> better for them in the long run if they get something simple that they can
> understand everything about and master the use of quickly.

I completely agree. The problem is that people expect that they can
make a lifetime investment when they start, and that's the fallicy.
Anyone who decides not to buy a $59 mixer because they think that a
$100 mixer will be the last one they'll ever need is wrong. On
the other hand, there's a good reason to buy the $100 mixer. When it's
time to replace it, chances are either it will still be good enough to
keep as an auxiliary mixer (which may be true with the $59 mixer also)
or if it's absolutely necessary to get some money out of it, it will
be easier to sell.

> > I'll have to give a few points to the other side here. A lot of the
> > entry level audio gear is, if not directly marketed as "as good as"
> > it's implied, and believed by those who promote this eqipment.
>
> They believe that about thier own products? I think that a breakthrough
> priduct like the mackie 8-buss was actually as good as some stuff being used
> in commercial studios that did cost a lot more, but there was plenty of
> stuff that the mackie couldn't touch in a million years

This is where Marketing does its thing. Sure, there were pro studios
that had equipment that was inferior to the Mackie, but there were pro
studios that had superior equipment. The marketing department tried
its darndest to make new potential customers think that if they bought
a Mackie, they'd be as good or better than pro studios. Not completely
untrue, but somewhat misleading.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

George Gleason

February 23rd 04, 02:59 PM

.. The marketing department tried
> its darndest to make new potential customers think that if they bought
> a Mackie, they'd be as good or better than pro studios. Not completely
> untrue, but somewhat misleading.

Most of the beggining live engineers I have worked with mix MUCH better on
mackies than Big Midas desks
I hesitate to give a parametric eq section to a engineer unless he can show
proficent knowledge of what it is and why it is there
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004

Carlos Alden

February 23rd 04, 03:27 PM

in article , George Perfect
at wrote on 2/22/04 11:37 PM:

>
> In the same way that my kids see nothing unusual about robots landing on
> Mars and accept the mobile phone as a birth-right, they take to
> technology like a duck to water. My son has watched me in the studio a
> bit, picked up the basics of operating the mixers and signal routing and
> which buttons to press to get sound in and out of the computer.

Ha ha ha . My wife and I just got cell phones (welcome to the new
millenium, Carlos!) and my 15 year old daughter has been quite amused for
the last week watching us try and figure them out and fool with them. You
know, calling home from the car right outside the house, sending emails to
her on the computer in the next room. To her it must look like an old movie
of Ma and Pa Kettle hollering into the new-fangled telly-phone machine.
"Hey Ma! Can you HEEEAR me!"

George is right. To them it's just a few buttons and there's nothing really
high-tech about it. It simply is.

Carlos

Mike Rivers

February 23rd 04, 09:37 PM

In article > writes:

> I hesitate to give a parametric eq section to a engineer unless he can show
> proficent knowledge of what it is and why it is there

I feel the same way about a microphone, but alas, we've been overrun
with people who think that there's nothing to engineering than buying
gear and asking how to connect it.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Bryan Giles

February 24th 04, 01:32 PM

For what it is worth, I got my 1st 2 gold records courtesy of behringer
and junk. So Who cares. it payed the bill so I could upgrade a bit.

i Still use some of the pieces, I am selective. Do I expect it to
perform like a 2000 piece of gear?? No, But like a GREAT carpenter can
tak warped wood and make a miracle, I take this garbage and make it
work and work well.

That is what experience does for you like the other guys have said. I
am not a Behringer fan, I am a fan of spending money on my wife and
then my craft. If she is happy behringer is cool with me. If I buy
Focusrite and she is miserable is that Focusrite doing megood?? Nope it
is in the way of a happy life.

Oh Yeah by the way, everytime I buy a better piece of gear, my wife
hears the difference. She is a singer and we both make hits together.
:) But we both have decided to choose wisdom over perfection.

Hope that helps you married guys out there. Keep the Family peace above
all else. :)

And learn to get that cheap gear working miracles.

Oh yeah one last thing.

As long as there are electronics nuts out there that like improving
gear.... I have nothing to worry about.

Mike Rivers

February 24th 04, 05:15 PM

In article <2004022408340750073%giles117@ameritechnetnospam> writes:

> For what it is worth, I got my 1st 2 gold records courtesy of behringer
> and junk. So Who cares. it payed the bill so I could upgrade a bit.

Gold records don't come from top sound quality, but it's good that you
got your project started and were able to take it far enough to get
record sales. It doesn't pay to wait until you can buy expensive gear
if you have marketable talent.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Bryan Giles

February 24th 04, 08:12 PM

Thanks Mike you summarized my point perfectly.

On 2004-02-24 12:15:11 -0500, (Mike Rivers) said:

>
> In article <2004022408340750073%giles117@ameritechnetnospam>
> writes:
>
>> For what it is worth, I got my 1st 2 gold records courtesy of behringer
>> and junk. So Who cares. it payed the bill so I could upgrade a bit.
>
> Gold records don't come from top sound quality, but it's good that you
> got your project started and were able to take it far enough to get
> record sales. It doesn't pay to wait until you can buy expensive gear
> if you have marketable talent.

Chris Seifert

February 25th 04, 09:00 AM

The quality of Behringer has been debated for too long as it is so I
won't continue that debate...

My issue with Behringer is their business practises. How many lawsuits
does that company need filed against them for patent infringement
anyway. I've bought Behringer gear in the past. used it
as I needed it and don't use it anymore. However, I will not buy any
more of their products because
I feel that when you buy something you are "speaking with your
wallet". I would rather speak to companies that are at least trying to
create new and innovative solutions without so blatantly ripping of
other companies designs and then selling them for less as they had no
research and development costs to recoup.

And if anyone thinks I'm making this up try remembering a few years
ago that Aphex and Mackie and I thought there was a third company, all
had suits against Behringer.
I mean, geez, If Behringer was innocent they sure did a good job of
making their products LOOK identical by accident. Maybe this doesn't
bug anyone else and I'm an uptight snob, or maybe some people just
don't know this history and after they do, they might want to support
companies that seem to want to further the quality of audio by
innovation and design instead of reverse engineering.

George Perfect

February 25th 04, 09:30 AM

In this place, Chris Seifert was recorded uttering these words:
> The quality of Behringer has been debated for too long as it is so I
> won't continue that debate...
>
> My issue with Behringer is their business practises. How many lawsuits
> does that company need filed against them for patent infringement
> anyway.

Precisely one - and a dodgy one at that.

> I've bought Behringer gear in the past. used it
> as I needed it and don't use it anymore. However, I will not buy any
> more of their products because
> I feel that when you buy something you are "speaking with your
> wallet". I would rather speak to companies that are at least trying to
> create new and innovative solutions without so blatantly ripping of
> other companies designs and then selling them for less as they had no
> research and development costs to recoup.

Great. Another bozo who speaks before looking and can't read an archive.

>
> And if anyone thinks I'm making this up try remembering a few years
> ago that Aphex and Mackie and I thought there was a third company, all
> had suits against Behringer.

Stop re-hashing old wives tales and go read the archive to see just how
wrong you can be. Start here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&selm=MPG.192661c49196fb0989705%40News.CIS.DFN.DE&rnum=67

> I mean, geez, If Behringer was innocent they sure did a good job of
> making their products LOOK identical by accident. Maybe this doesn't
> bug anyone else and I'm an uptight snob, or maybe some people just
> don't know this history and after they do, they might want to support
> companies that seem to want to further the quality of audio by
> innovation and design instead of reverse engineering.

Snob? Maybe.

Fool? Definitely.

--
George
Newcastle, England
(Please remove leading 'NOSPAM' to reply by email)

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth by hitting back - Piet Hein

George

February 25th 04, 12:59 PM

In article >,
(Chris Seifert) wrote:

> The quality of Behringer has been debated for too long as it is so I
> won't continue that debate...
>
> My issue with Behringer is their business practises. How many lawsuits
> does that company need filed against them for patent infringement
> anyway.

what a tired old myth
I suggest you do some learnin' for you come to lecture here buddy
this myth was debunked in excrucating detail less than 3 months ago,
right here
learn to use google it will help you stop embaressing yourself

George

Bryan Giles

February 25th 04, 08:31 PM

Amen George. Sharing Ideas happens all the time in this business.

Look at the Behringer ultr voice, it resembles 2 other products in form
fuction and layout (maybe 4??)

The Focurite Voice Master Pro
and the
Presonus VXP

So is behringer a rip off or did they do what 2 other companies do, put
out a similar product at differnt price points.

the ADA-8000 is an idea borrwoed from the Presonus Digimax and the
Focusrite Octo-Pre. SO who is right and worng and who is stealing.

So when Behringer copies the Mackie big Knob and the Presonus central
Command at a Lower Price point will we claim stealing??

I mean look at Compressors. How many are layed out almost the same,

dbx, drawmer, BBS, Klark-Teknik, Alesis, rane, on and on and on. WHo is
suing over that. Similar layout differnt brand specific features.

Oh well. One day I will sell my behringer ADA-8000 and buy a Focusrite
Octo-Pre. when I have an additional 800 beans to spare.

Rock on guys rock on.....

On 2004-02-25 07:59:51 -0500, George > said:

> In article >,
> (Chris Seifert) wrote:
>
>> The quality of Behringer has been debated for too long as it is so I
>> won't continue that debate...
>>
>> My issue with Behringer is their business practises. How many lawsuits
>> does that company need filed against them for patent infringement
>> anyway.
>
> what a tired old myth
> I suggest you do some learnin' for you come to lecture here buddy
> this myth was debunked in excrucating detail less than 3 months ago, right here
> learn to use google it will help you stop embaressing yourself
>
> George

reddred

February 25th 04, 09:14 PM

"Chris Seifert" > wrote in message
om...
> The quality of Behringer has been debated for too long as it is so I
> won't continue that debate...
>
> My issue with Behringer is their business practises. How many lawsuits
> does that company need filed against them for patent infringement
> anyway. I've bought Behringer gear in the past. used it
> as I needed it and don't use it anymore. However, I will not buy any
> more of their products because
> I feel that when you buy something you are "speaking with your
> wallet". I would rather speak to companies that are at least trying to
> create new and innovative solutions without so blatantly ripping of
> other companies designs and then selling them for less as they had no
> research and development costs to recoup.
>

If I felt that way, I could never buy *any* computer parts at all, ever, for
the rest of my life.

jb

> And if anyone thinks I'm making this up try remembering a few years
> ago that Aphex and Mackie and I thought there was a third company, all
> had suits against Behringer.
> I mean, geez, If Behringer was innocent they sure did a good job of
> making their products LOOK identical by accident. Maybe this doesn't
> bug anyone else and I'm an uptight snob, or maybe some people just
> don't know this history and after they do, they might want to support
> companies that seem to want to further the quality of audio by
> innovation and design instead of reverse engineering.

George Gleason

February 25th 04, 09:14 PM

"Bryan Giles" > wrote in message
news:2004022515330275249%giles117@ameritechnetnosp am...
> Amen George. Sharing Ideas happens all the time in this business.

just look at trapazoid shaped PA boxes, a Meyer Sound invention, now used by
everyone
the V-Dosc started the line array race but they can not cliam a patent as
to all line arrays, and all line arrays will basicly follow the v-dosc ,
beacuse uit is the nature of the beast , not beacuse there is industrial
espionage or theft going on
>
So if I open a take out food joint and decide to offer chicken wings should
i be prevented beacuse the Anchor bar in Buffalo though of it first?
nearly all the tires I see are round and made of rubber over steel belts
Humm some one is a low life stealing scum for not making thier tires out of
glass and square at that

There is a concept of form follows function

Behringers silver finish alone is enough to establish it as a diffrent
product
I do not know all the in and outs
but suits are brought against companies all the time , both with merit and
without
Mackies suits against behringer were found to NOT have merit
one suit a decade and 1/2 ago against Aphex
was established to have some merit , in that it actually was not thrown out
the door prior to trial

please anyone that really feels Behringer has established a history of
rebadging others designs
please do the research before you kick this can down the hill again
It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it just is not true
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/2004

Scott Dorsey

February 25th 04, 10:24 PM

reddred > wrote:
>"Chris Seifert" > wrote in message
>> I feel that when you buy something you are "speaking with your
>> wallet". I would rather speak to companies that are at least trying to
>> create new and innovative solutions without so blatantly ripping of
>> other companies designs and then selling them for less as they had no
>> research and development costs to recoup.
>>
>If I felt that way, I could never buy *any* computer parts at all, ever, for
>the rest of my life.

And that, in short, is why I am using 20-year-old DEC equipment.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Bryan Giles

February 25th 04, 11:48 PM

Poor Chris. I gues we should shut down Microsoft because they are a
very well marketed monopoly that waits till joe blow develops a product
and then either buys joe out or mimics joes creation.

think Netscape Navigator.

Netscape shot themselves in the foot when the didnt devlop a browser
that was nimble on it's feet when IE 4 came into circulation.

MSFT does what they do. Copy and market. We all do it. or have done it
at one time or another.

Hey Steve how's that DEC doing. LOL

Heck I miss my VIC-20. LOL

And Lord, all the things I could do with my Sinclair 1000

On 2004-02-25 16:14:02 -0500, "reddred" > said:

>
> "Chris Seifert" > wrote in message
> om...
>> The quality of Behringer has been debated for too long as it is so I
>> won't continue that debate...
>>
>> My issue with Behringer is their business practises. How many lawsuits
>> does that company need filed against them for patent infringement
>> anyway. I've bought Behringer gear in the past. used it
>> as I needed it and don't use it anymore. However, I will not buy any
>> more of their products because
>> I feel that when you buy something you are "speaking with your
>> wallet". I would rather speak to companies that are at least trying to
>> create new and innovative solutions without so blatantly ripping of
>> other companies designs and then selling them for less as they had no
>> research and development costs to recoup.
>>
>
> If I felt that way, I could never buy *any* computer parts at all, ever, for
> the rest of my life.
>
> jb
>
>
>
>> And if anyone thinks I'm making this up try remembering a few years
>> ago that Aphex and Mackie and I thought there was a third company, all
>> had suits against Behringer.
>> I mean, geez, If Behringer was innocent they sure did a good job of
>> making their products LOOK identical by accident. Maybe this doesn't
>> bug anyone else and I'm an uptight snob, or maybe some people just
>> don't know this history and after they do, they might want to support
>> companies that seem to want to further the quality of audio by
>> innovation and design instead of reverse engineering.

Scott Dorsey

February 26th 04, 12:14 AM

Bryan Giles > wrote:
>Poor Chris. I gues we should shut down Microsoft because they are a
>very well marketed monopoly that waits till joe blow develops a product
>and then either buys joe out or mimics joes creation.

Not a good example.
Much as I dislike some of Behringer's business practices, Microsoft's
behaviour in the past has been so vile that I think criminal charges
would be more appropriate.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Bryan Giles

February 26th 04, 03:31 AM

On 2004-02-25 19:14:56 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) said:

> Bryan Giles > wrote:
>> Poor Chris. I gues we should shut down Microsoft because they are a
>> very well marketed monopoly that waits till joe blow develops a product
>> and then either buys joe out or mimics joes creation.
>
> Not a good example.
> Much as I dislike some of Behringer's business practices, Microsoft's
> behaviour in the past has been so vile that I think criminal charges
> would be more appropriate.
> --scott

The only thing microsoft did was tell a pc manufacturer to license
their OS at a certain price point, you had to not put certain other
programs on the desktop. SO did they force these computer
manufactureres to do that? Nope Dell made a choice, HP made a choice,
Compaq Made a Choice.

Peoples greed makes them make bad choices. Microsoft capitalized on
their greed.

SMART BUSINESS

I have clients that want me to engineer their corporate shows. they
want me bad enuff i get a higher price out of them. Is that bad?? Nope
Supply and Demand.

Not Bad Business. Smart Business.

All these things relate and apply.

But these are all opinons. Non of us are in these guys shoes. So what
do we really know. :)

Garthrr

February 26th 04, 06:06 AM

In article <200402252233303237%giles117@ameritechnetnospam>, Bryan Giles
> writes:

>I have clients that want me to engineer their corporate shows. they
>want me bad enuff i get a higher price out of them. Is that bad?? Nope
>Supply and Demand.

That analogy doesnt work. Charging what one is worth or can get is not the
issue. A better analogy to what Microsoft has done would be if you told your
clients that you would engineer for them only if they also hire your friend to
do their taxes.

Garth~

"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

Chris Seifert

February 26th 04, 08:50 AM

Ok, George - I read your link to the 300 post thread and realize now
that I came late to the party.
I agree with the sentiments in that thread, that this issue should be
left in the past, as there are many individual opinons and points of
view regarding it. When I am wrong, I admit so. I shouldn't have
brought up this recently flogged horse of a topic.

However, calling me "bozo" or "fool" is simply out of line.
Comments like that don't belong here, or justify your arguments.

For years, I have participated and contributed to this forum, sharing
information with others as a positive member of the Pro Audio
Community, and I will continue to do so.

Peace and Balance,
Chris Seifert
wavetrap

George Perfect

February 26th 04, 09:35 AM

In this place, Chris Seifert was recorded uttering these words:
> Ok, George - I read your link to the 300 post thread and realize now
> that I came late to the party.
> I agree with the sentiments in that thread, that this issue should be
> left in the past, as there are many individual opinons and points of
> view regarding it. When I am wrong, I admit so. I shouldn't have
> brought up this recently flogged horse of a topic.

Agreed.

>
> However, calling me "bozo" or "fool" is simply out of line.
> Comments like that don't belong here, or justify your arguments.

Chris, I humbly disagree. Like too many others, you were happy to sling
nasty accusations around without a shred of evidence to support. I
assume you would not appreciate folks unfairly accusing you of ripping
off the work of others so why should you regard Behringer (or anyone
else) a suitable target for slander?

To make such remarks makes you a bozo in my mind. Especially when you
write with such assurance - eg:

"And if anyone thinks I'm making this up try remembering a few years
ago that Aphex and Mackie and I thought there was a third company, all
had suits against Behringer."

To ignore a resource based on nothing more than blind, ill-informed
prejudice is foolish. Again, IMO.
>
> For years, I have participated and contributed to this forum, sharing
> information with others as a positive member of the Pro Audio
> Community, and I will continue to do so.

If you are a regular, you can't have failed to notice the several
l-o-n-g threads in the past couple of years.

I could turn this round on you and ask *you* how many lawsuits Behringer
has faced for alleged patent infringement or give you a list of the
company's recent products and ask where they got the ideas from but I
won't.

Instead, I'll close thus.

Peace.

--
George
Newcastle, England
(Please remove leading 'NOSPAM' to reply by email)

Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth by hitting back - Piet Hein

Lars

February 26th 04, 10:09 AM

Bryan Giles > wrote in message news:<200402252233303237%giles117@ameritechnetnospam>...
> The only thing microsoft did was tell a pc manufacturer to license
> their OS at a certain price point, you had to not put certain other
> programs on the desktop. SO did they force these computer
> manufactureres to do that? Nope Dell made a choice, HP made a choice,
> Compaq Made a Choice.
>
> Peoples greed makes them make bad choices. Microsoft capitalized on
> their greed.
>
> SMART BUSINESS

Agreed. To disdain a corporation for their "business practicies" is
futile. Moral standards have no place in the business world
whatsoever. The goal of corporations is the same as for all machines:
to function efficiently. In the business world, everything succumbs to
efficiency.

Even the corporations people would deem "ethical" succumb to this
goal. Any person saying that a corporation has ethical business
practices obviously has a poorer understanding of that corporation's
PR techniques than the corporation's true nature.

George Gleason

February 26th 04, 01:50 PM

> For years, I have participated and contributed to this forum, sharing
> information with others as a positive member of the Pro Audio
> Community, and I will continue to do so.
>

I will both look for and forward to your posts
George(not perfect) Gleason

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/2004

Ricky W. Hunt

February 26th 04, 05:19 PM

"Bryan Giles" > wrote in message
news:2004022515330275249%giles117@ameritechnetnosp am...

> I mean look at Compressors. How many are layed out almost the same,

This is the part of the "anti" argument I don't get. You're exactly right.
How many ways are their to do a layout (at least as useful one)? I would
imagine the first units chose interface design based on ergonomics so that
really doesn't give you many options. It's like saying only the first car
with a column mounted steering wheel directly in front of the driver can
have it that way. Any car designed by any other company will have to have it
somewhere else (like the ceiling?) if they are allowed to use a wheel at
all. And of course, the third manufacturer can't use the column OR the
ceiling. Ripping of the color scheme would be more offensive to me than
that.

PeteL

February 26th 04, 05:23 PM

Bryan Giles > wrote in message news:<200402252233303237%giles117@ameritechnetnospam>...
> On 2004-02-25 19:14:56 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) said:
>
> > Bryan Giles > wrote:
> >> Poor Chris. I gues we should shut down Microsoft because they are a
> >> very well marketed monopoly that waits till joe blow develops a product
> >> and then either buys joe out or mimics joes creation.
> >
> > Not a good example.
> > Much as I dislike some of Behringer's business practices, Microsoft's
> > behaviour in the past has been so vile that I think criminal charges
> > would be more appropriate.
> > --scott
>
> The only thing microsoft did was tell a pc manufacturer to license
> their OS at a certain price point, you had to not put certain other
> programs on the desktop. SO did they force these computer
> manufactureres to do that? Nope Dell made a choice, HP made a choice,
> Compaq Made a Choice.
>
> Peoples greed makes them make bad choices. Microsoft capitalized on
> their greed.
>
> SMART BUSINESS
>
> I have clients that want me to engineer their corporate shows. they
> want me bad enuff i get a higher price out of them. Is that bad?? Nope
> Supply and Demand.
>
> Not Bad Business. Smart Business.
>
> All these things relate and apply.
>
> But these are all opinons. Non of us are in these guys shoes. So what
> do we really know. :)

When I first started recording,it was on an original Tascam 4trk.
cassette and a cheap AT dynamic.
Over the years I have slowly built my studio up to a halfway decent
semi-pro level.
Problem is,all the cheap gear I bought along the way was either sold
or traded at a significant loss.

When Berringer first came out with their garbage line,I bought a
compressor.
I knew they made top flight gear,(they really did used to make good
equipment),and since they were one of the first pro companies to
market trash,the thought never occured to me that that's what they
were doing.
I thought,what a great thing for them to do,sell one of their
compressors for a hundred bucks!(I'm a little naive sometimes.)
I took it home,tried it out,and took it back.
Got another one,same thing.
Then I smelled the coffee,and it wasn't Starbucks!

Don't get me wrong,there are some cheap deals out there that are
keepers.
SM57,58,Mackie mixers(great for a backup and built like a tank),Canare
cable,micro piano etc.

All one needs to do is hang around here or some of the better
recording sites,and you'll get the idea of what's what pretty quick.
But if someone is serious about recording and sets themselves up
totally with cheap gear,one of two things is going to happen.
Either they are going to give it up,or take a loss buying better gear
down the road.
Trust me,I know.